[190312] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 1GE L3 aggregation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Thu Jun 23 02:32:49 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 08:32:41 +0200
In-Reply-To: <05945B43-C4D5-435E-ABB3-CCAA6BEB8DE6@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 23/Jun/16 08:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Unless the difference is HUGE, you usually don=E2=80=99t really care.
Agree.
We are in that scenario, and mostly don't care as well. There is enough
link capacity
> Who said anything about a ring. He is advertising a /24 to 2 upstream p=
roviders.
Which is what I said at the end of my reply to you.
The ring angle came up as part of a wider discussion earlier in this
thread, where protecting the FIB makes sense.
> Even if you=E2=80=99re in a ring if you=E2=80=99ve got two transit prov=
iders at some random point on the ring, it still probably doesn=E2=80=99t=
make a meaningful difference between full feeds from each vs. ECMP, beca=
use it=E2=80=99s pretty unlikely that the AS PATH length is affected by t=
he ring length.
In my experience, rings are normally on-net backbones (Metro-E, e.t.c.).
The terminating devices on the core side at each end of the ring will be
your own equipment, and not another AS.
Two links to your upstream won't matter whether it's in a ring or just
plain point-to-point circuits, as there is no IGP relevance on such tails=
=2E
Mark.
